Re: Posting policies?

Thank you. This is a reasonable approach. Moderating postings should be done for a few weeks at a time. If no spam, back to normal posting again. Etc. if problems reoccur. I do not believe computer competence should be a criteria for being able to post to this group. If computer competence were required everyone on this forum would be using Linux, as I do (SECURE, reliable, fast, robust, flexible, scalable).

I have recently corresponded with Graeme and things don't add up. His email address was on the bolger message forum, but the spam in my email was from sharpie, AND the messages are identical. Furthermore Graeme says he is part of other groups which have not gotten any spam from him. It is not worth sorting these things out. Your solution is a reasonable solution.

Please send a welcoming email to Graeme, and anyone else in the same position, asking them to post again and informing them of the solution, and expressing our hope to see them posting again.
Eric

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "John Kohnen" <jhkohnen@...> wrote:
>
> When someones account has been spoofed, and spam shows up from a member of
> one of the groups I moderate, I change their posting setting to
> "moderated" until the problem us fixed, rather than banning them.
>
> On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 14:02:12 -0700, dj wrote:
>
> > ...
> > On Mon Aug 09, somebody posted spam to this list using Graeme's
> > credentials. An examination of the headers indicates that this spam
> > message was sent via an email from an ISP in the Netherlands, whereas a
> > look at Graeme's other posts shows that they are usually entered via the
> > Yahoo web interface or via Yahoo mail. Also, the spam was sent using the
> > name of "Zhamak Boobs", a moniker that Graeme's never gone by. Very out
> > of character.
> >
> > The inference is that Graeme's been spoofed, and is therefore not
> > directly responsible for the spam.
> > ...
>
>
> --
> John (jkohnen@...)
> My country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when
> wrong, to be put right. (Carl Schurz)
>

You're a wise man, John. That's the way I handle my groups too.

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 18:24:00 -0700, John W wrote:

> Another option that I use is to make the default setting Moderated.
> That way a spammer can't publish the first spam, and I can report his
> attempt when I get the approval request.
>
> Once a member makes a legitimate post, remove the Moderated tag.
>
> Works like a charm, and the legitimate member hardly knows there's a
> delay!

--
John (jkohnen@...)
As for myself, the wonderful sea charmed me from the first.
(Joshua Slocum)

Another option that I use is to make the default setting Moderated.
That way a spammer can't publish the first spam, and I can report his
attempt when I get the approval request.

Once a member makes a legitimate post, remove the Moderated tag.

Works like a charm, and the legitimate member hardly knows there's a delay!


John Kohnen wrote:

> There's the option of moderating just members who've been spoofed, until
> they get the problem straightened out. It's not much work.
>
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 07:53:11 -0700, Gregory wrote:
>
>> Graeme was banned for spamming, and is aware of that and was sent the
>> message off-list. It was not for any other reason.
>> ...
>
>> No other other options besides 100% moderation - so Graeme's email
>> basically got screwed up, unfortunately for him.
>> ...

There's the option of moderating just members who've been spoofed, until
they get the problem straightened out. It's not much work.

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 07:53:11 -0700, Gregory wrote:

> Graeme was banned for spamming, and is aware of that and was sent the
> message off-list. It was not for any other reason.
> ...

> No other other options besides 100% moderation - so Graeme's email
> basically got screwed up, unfortunately for him.
> ...


--
John (jkohnen@...)
There are two means of refuge from the misery of life - music
and cats. (Albert Schweitzer)

When someones account has been spoofed, and spam shows up from a member of
one of the groups I moderate, I change their posting setting to
"moderated" until the problem us fixed, rather than banning them.

On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 14:02:12 -0700, dj wrote:

> ...
> On Mon Aug 09, somebody posted spam to this list using Graeme's
> credentials. An examination of the headers indicates that this spam
> message was sent via an email from an ISP in the Netherlands, whereas a
> look at Graeme's other posts shows that they are usually entered via the
> Yahoo web interface or via Yahoo mail. Also, the spam was sent using the
> name of "Zhamak Boobs", a moniker that Graeme's never gone by. Very out
> of character.
>
> The inference is that Graeme's been spoofed, and is therefore not
> directly responsible for the spam.
> ...


--
John (jkohnen@...)
My country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when
wrong, to be put right. (Carl Schurz)

He would have to change his yahoo password and probably some other changes to his profile including his address. . He might also have to look at his PC as there is a good chance a Trojan pulled his password.

I agree, Grame is one of the more informed posters on this group.

HJ

Bill Howard wrote:

So there is no way to bring back Graeme?  The world's loss!

Bill Howard

Nellysford VA

On Aug 20, 2010, at 10:53 AM, Gregory wrote:

 

Graeme was banned for spamming, and is aware of that and was sent the message off-list. It was not for any other reason.

I would agree it appears he was spoofed, but Yahoo can't see that. The problem becomes - you readmit Graeme, plus his "spoofer", or block the address. No other other options besides 100% moderation - so Graeme's email basically got screwed up, unfortunately for him.

I tried to reinvite Graeme anyway and hoping the spammer moved on, but he has invites blocked.

But, in the larger picture, if headers get forged, either the list gets filled with spam or the poor guy who's identity got stolen basically gets blocked. Lesser of two evils.

In general, with Spam - please DON'T reply and push it back on the list. Luckily, most people ignore it. Ignore it and I'll kill it.

Basically, the less time we spend off-topic, the better.

Thanks,
Gregg/Moderator

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "djdecker2002"<djdecker2002@...>wrote:
>
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Eric" <eric14850@> wrote:
> >
> > I recognise Graeme's name as a frequent contributor and while not remembering all his posts my memory is that his contributions have been generally constructive and certainly civil, as his note (below) to me is. I also got some spam in my mailbox which was also on the list when I visited it the next day and is perhaps still there. Comments? Corrections?
> > Eric
> >
>
> <stuff snipped>
>
> >
> > Anyway, apparently I've been surreptitiously banned from the group by the moderator for saying these things!
> >
>
> On Mon Aug 09, somebody posted spam to this list using Graeme's credentials. An examination of the headers indicates that this spam message was sent via an email from an ISP in the Netherlands, whereas a look at Graeme's other posts shows that they are usually entered via the Yahoo web interface or via Yahoo mail. Also, the spam was sent using the name of "Zhamak Boobs", a moniker that Graeme's never gone by. Very out of character.
>
> The inference is that Graeme's been spoofed, and is therefore not directly responsible for the spam.
>
> I would assume the spam is the reason for the ban, and not Graeme's opinions on ballast. It would seem that if Graeme were to take the precaution of virus and trojan checking his system, and changing his yahoo password, the odds of such a spoof repeating would be very low.
>
> The question is up to the mods, but personally, I'd like to see him back.
>
> -Derek
>

So there is no way to bring back Graeme?  The world's loss!

Graeme was banned for spamming, and is aware of that and was sent the message off-list. It was not for any other reason.

I would agree it appears he was spoofed, but Yahoo can't see that. The problem becomes - you readmit Graeme, plus his "spoofer", or block the address. No other other options besides 100% moderation - so Graeme's email basically got screwed up, unfortunately for him.

I tried to reinvite Graeme anyway and hoping the spammer moved on, but he has invites blocked.

But, in the larger picture, if headers get forged, either the list gets filled with spam or the poor guy who's identity got stolen basically gets blocked. Lesser of two evils.

In general, with Spam - please DON'T reply and push it back on the list. Luckily, most people ignore it. Ignore it and I'll kill it.

Basically, the less time we spend off-topic, the better.

Thanks,
Gregg/Moderator

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "djdecker2002" <djdecker2002@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Eric" <eric14850@> wrote:
> >
> > I recognise Graeme's name as a frequent contributor and while not remembering all his posts my memory is that his contributions have been generally constructive and certainly civil, as his note (below) to me is. I also got some spam in my mailbox which was also on the list when I visited it the next day and is perhaps still there. Comments? Corrections?
> > Eric
> >
>
> <stuff snipped>
>
> >
> > Anyway, apparently I've been surreptitiously banned from the group by the moderator for saying these things!
> >
>
> On Mon Aug 09, somebody posted spam to this list using Graeme's credentials. An examination of the headers indicates that this spam message was sent via an email from an ISP in the Netherlands, whereas a look at Graeme's other posts shows that they are usually entered via the Yahoo web interface or via Yahoo mail. Also, the spam was sent using the name of "Zhamak Boobs", a moniker that Graeme's never gone by. Very out of character.
>
> The inference is that Graeme's been spoofed, and is therefore not directly responsible for the spam.
>
> I would assume the spam is the reason for the ban, and not Graeme's opinions on ballast. It would seem that if Graeme were to take the precaution of virus and trojan checking his system, and changing his yahoo password, the odds of such a spoof repeating would be very low.
>
> The question is up to the mods, but personally, I'd like to see him back.
>
> -Derek
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Eric" <eric14850@...> wrote:

>
> I recognise Graeme's name as a frequent contributor and while not remembering all his posts my memory is that his contributions have been generally constructive and certainly civil, as his note (below) to me is. I also got some spam in my mailbox which was also on the list when I visited it the next day and is perhaps still there. Comments? Corrections?
> Eric
>

<stuff snipped>

>
> Anyway, apparently I've been surreptitiously banned from the group by the moderator for saying these things!
>

On Mon Aug 09, somebody posted spam to this list using Graeme's credentials. An examination of the headers indicates that this spam message was sent via an email from an ISP in the Netherlands, whereas a look at Graeme's other posts shows that they are usually entered via the Yahoo web interface or via Yahoo mail. Also, the spam was sent using the name of "Zhamak Boobs", a moniker that Graeme's never gone by. Very out of character.

The inference is that Graeme's been spoofed, and is therefore not directly responsible for the spam.

I would assume the spam is the reason for the ban, and not Graeme's opinions on ballast. It would seem that if Graeme were to take the precaution of virus and trojan checking his system, and changing his yahoo password, the odds of such a spoof repeating would be very low.

The question is up to the mods, but personally, I'd like to see him back.

-Derek

Graeme sent me a side note regarding my last post. I was about to write to him that I my comments were meant to add weight to some sensible comments made about water ballast and to correct some misconceptions that were murmuring in the background. However, his last sentence disturbed me and I felt a need to raise the issue on the list. I recognise Graeme's name as a frequent contributor and while not remembering all his posts my memory is that his contributions have been generally constructive and certainly civil, as his note (below) to me is. I also got some spam in my mailbox which was also on the list when I visited it the next day and is perhaps still there. Comments? Corrections?
Eric

> Ballast is ballast.

Hi Eric,

I did say "any ballast". And it's true that widely held conceptual errors did add to the storm of adverse hype regarding the original Martha Jane design. Importantly, there were other factors at play too. However my main point was that the disasterous boat concerned was not built to plan, that this seemed to have been overlooked in all the noise. Poorly sailed too. Ten years and more on, and not a single report of similar trouble with an original Martha Jane! They weren't all suddenly scrapped back then. There's only one that I know of that has been converted to the full revision. It's true though that some have had fitted when built, or been retrofitted with the first minimal revised modifications. Even Michalak has recently written that they are a good boat.

Anyway, apparently I've been surreptitiously banned from the group by the moderator for saying these things!

Cheers
Graeme